REPUBLIC ACT

NO. 10364
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
“EXPANDED ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS ACT OF 2012”

Narag, Melanie Jane Cadao, Sedfrey

Ubias, Glydel Rianne Bayubay, Jayson
Pagaduan, Aliza Gutierrez Jherico
Esteban, Zharalee Manglapus, John Lewis
Cuaresma, Ace Pascua, Jhoncent
Alan, Kelvin Jay
GROUP 2
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10364
“EXPANDED ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2012”

The purpose of the law is to provide a solid legal

foundation to protect individuals, particularly women
and children, who are vulnerable to trafficking.

It seeks to prevent the exploitation of individuals for

forced labor, sexual exploitation, and other forms of
involuntary servitude. The law recognizes the urgency
of addressing this grave issue and acknowledges the
importance of robust measures to ensure the
protection and restoration of victims.
 Section 3. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act

(a) Trafficking in
Persons
refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons
with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across
national borders by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of
coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position,
taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which
includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or
other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
 Section 3. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act

(b) Child
refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over
eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of or protect
himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

(c) Prostitution

refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a

person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in
exchange for money, profit or any other consideration.
 Section 3. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act

(d) Forced Labor

refers to the extraction of work or services from any person by means
of enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use of, force or
coercion, including deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral
ascendancy, debt-bondage or deception including any work or service
extracted from any person under the menace of penalty.

(e) Slavery
refers to the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the
powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.
 Section 3. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act

(f) Involuntary Servitude

refers to a condition of enforced and compulsory service

induced by means of any scheme, plan or pattern, intended
to cause a person to believe that if he or she did not enter
into or continue in such condition, he or she or another
person would suffer serious harm or other forms of abuse or
physical restraint, or threat of abuse or harm, or coercion
including depriving access to travel documents and
withholding salaries, or the abuse or threatened abuse of
the legal process.
 Section 3. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act

(g) Sex Tourism

refers to a program organized by travel and

tourism-related establishments and individuals
which consists of tourism packages or activities,
utilizing and offering escort and sexual services as
enticement for tourists. This includes sexual
services and practices offered during rest and
recreation periods for members of the military.
 Section 3. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act

(h) Sexual Exploitation

refers to participation by a person in prostitution, pornography or

the production of pornography, in exchange for money, profit or
any other consideration or where the participation is caused or
facilitated by any means of intimidation or threat, use of force, or
other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, debt
bondage, abuse of power or of position or of legal process, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a
person having control over another person; or in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct caused or facilitated by any
means as provided in this Act.
 Section 3. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act

(i) Debt Bondage

refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her personal services or labor or
those of a person under his/her control as security or payment for a debt,
when the length and nature of services is not clearly defined or when the
value of the services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward the
liquidation of the debt.

(j) Pornography
refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition,
cinematography, indecent shows, information technology, or by whatever
means, of a person engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities
or any representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual
purposes.
(k) Council
shall mean the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking created under
Section 20 of this Act."
 Violation and Penalties under
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9208 AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 10364
ACTS PENALTIES
Acts of Trafficking 20 years imprisonment and a fine of ₱1 million to 2 million
Attempted Attacking 15 years imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱ 1million
Accomplice Liability 15 years imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱ 1million
Accessories 15 years imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱ 1millio
Acts that Promote Trafficking 15 years imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱ 1millio
Qualified Trafficking Life imprisonment and a fine of ₱ 2 million to ₱ 5 million
Violation of Confidentiality Six (6) years imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 to ₱ 1million

Imprisonment of Prison Correccional or 6 months and 1 day to 6 yearss and

Used of Trafficked Person
₱ 500,000 and ₱ 100,000 fine
 Violation and Penalties under
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9208 AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 10364
If involves sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child:
Imprisonment of Reclusion Temporal in its medium period to Reclusion Perpetua and P500,000 to
1 Million fine

If involves carnal knowledge of, or sexual intercourse with, a male or female trafficking victim
and also involves the use of force or intimidation, to a victim deprived of reason or to an uncons
cious victim, or a victim under 12 years of age:
Imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua or 20 years and 1 day to 40 years and 1 Million to 5 Million fine

If committed by a foreigner
Deportation after serving the sentence and permanently barred from entering the country

If committed by Public Official

Dismissal from service, perpetual absolute disqualification in addition to imprisonment and fine
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR FILING A CASE
Trafficking cases can be filed within 10
years after they are committed. If
trafficking is cimmited by a syndicate
or on a large scale or against a child,
cases can be filed within 20 years after
the commission of the act.

The prescrptive period is counted from

the day the trafficked person is
delivered or realeased from the
conditions of bondage.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over cases involving
violations of RA 10364 or the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2012. This law aims to strengthen the government’s efforts to
combat human trafficking, protect the rights of trafficked persons,
and prosecute offenders. The RTC has the authority to hear and
decide on cases related to human trafficking, including those
concerning recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or
receipt of persons for exploitation.

The Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012 provides for the

prosecution of individuals involved in various forms of trafficking,
such as forced labor, sexual exploitation, slavery, servitude, and
organ trafficking. The RTC plays a crucial role in ensuring that
perpetrators are held accountable for their actions and that victims
receive the necessary support and protection.
Jurisprudence (cases
decided by the Supreme
Court) and the ruling of
the Supreme Court on
said cases relative to the
law of Republic Act No.
10364
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMMA
BARRIENTOS y PANTALEON,
accused-appellant, G.R. No.
255591, September 7, 2022.
 Emma Barrientos y Pantaleon was accused
FACTS of violating Section 4(a) of Republic Act
No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No.
10364, which pertains to trafficking in
persons. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Angeles City found Barrientos guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced
her to life imprisonment and a fine of
P2,000,000. The Court of Appeals (CA)
affirmed the RTC's decision. Barrientos
appealed to the Supreme Court (SC), but
the SC dismissed her appeal for failure to
show any reversible error committed by the
CA.
ISSUE
The main issue in the case is whether
the elements of the offense of
trafficking in persons under Section
4(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as
amended, were sufficiently
established to convict Barrientos.
 The SC affirmed the findings of the RTC and the CA that all the
RULING elements of the offense were sufficiently established by the
prosecution to convict Barrientos. The SC held that Barrientos
offered a minor, identified as AAA, to a foreign national for sex
services in exchange for money. AAA's certificate of live birth
showed that she was only 16 years old at the time of the
offense. The SC also noted that the second element of
trafficking in persons, which pertains to the means employed,
need not be proven in cases involving the trafficking of
children. Therefore, it was immaterial that AAA consented to
the commission of the offense or that she recruited two other
women to engage in the same acts. The SC emphasized that
the victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the
coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by
perpetrators of human trafficking. The SC also clarified that
the crime of trafficking in persons is considered consummated
even if no sexual intercourse takes place, as the gravamen of
the crime is the act of recruiting or using a fellow human being
for sexual exploitation.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs.
JENNYLYN ORATE y ARANDA,
accused-appellant, G.R. No.
248782, June 14, 2021
 FACTS
The case involves the accused-appellant, Jennylyn
Orate y Aranda, who was charged with qualified
trafficking under Section 6(a) of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364. The
information stated that on February 13, 2014, the
accused recruited and transferred a 17-year-old
minor, AAA, from Brgy. Linoc, Binmaley, Pangasinan
to Luna, Poblacion, Binmaley, Pangasinan by means
of deceit, force, and intimidation for the purpose of
gain and sexual exploitation. The accused pleaded
not guilty during arraignment, and the prosecution
presented AAA as the lone witness.
 The defense presented the accused and Marjo Gutierrez as
FACTS witnesses. The accused claimed that AAA was her neighbor
and friend, and on the day in question, AAA asked her to
accompany her to the plaza in Binmaley. They were
approached by AAA's boyfriend, Mark, who instructed them
to go to a house in Luna Laet. The accused denied knowing
Antonio Villanueva and Mark Villanueva. Marjo testified
that he met AAA in December 2013 and denied any
involvement in the alleged trafficking.

ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in
finding the accused-appellant guilty of violating
Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No.
10364?
RULING The Court ruled that the appeal is without merit. The
elements of trafficking in persons under R.A. No. 10364
were established in this case, and the offense was
qualified due to AAA's minority. The prosecution
satisfactorily proved that the accused, together with
two male persons, forced AAA to board a tricycle,
brought her to an abandoned house, turned her over to
Mark and Antonio, and left her there after receiving
money from Mark. The minor inconsistencies in AAA's
testimony did not affect her credibility, and the lack of
other witnesses did not impair the probative value of her
testimony. The Court emphasized that discrepancies
between an affidavit and testimony do not necessarily
impair a witness's credibility, and the testimony of a
single witness, if straightforward and categorical, is
sufficient to convict.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. BBB
and XXX, accused, BBB,
accused-appellant, G.R. No.
252507, April 18, 2022.
 The case involves appellant BBB who was charged with
FACTS qualified trafficking in persons together with XXX. The
charge stemmed from their alleged acts of trafficking in
person against AAA, a minor who was 14 years old at the
time of the incident. The prosecution alleged that BBB and
XXX conspired to exploit AAA by recruiting, obtaining,
hiring, providing, offering, transporting, transferring,
maintaining, harboring, or receiving her for the purpose of
sexual exploitation. The incident occurred on July 28, 2014,
in the City of Manila, Philippines. The case was filed in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 5, Manila.
During the trial, the prosecution presented witnesses such
as Lucille Ronda, Marjorie Rongalerios, Anne Sacheen Lea o,
Dr. Pamela Paredes, Dr. Olivia Inoturan, and Dr. Joy Alvi R.
Ara as to establish their case. The defense, on the other
hand, presented appellant BBB as the sole witness.
ISSUE The main issue in the case is whether
appellant BBB is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of qualified
trafficking in persons.

RULING The trial court found appellant BBB guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of qualified
trafficking in persons under Section 4 (c) in
relation to Section 6 (a) and (d) of Republic
Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No.
10364. BBB was sentenced to life imprisonment,
ordered to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos
(P2,000,000.00), and directed to pay moral
damages and exemplary damages to AAA.
FERNANDO B. ARAMBULO,
petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent, G.R.
No. 241834, July 24, 2019.
FACTS The case involves the conviction of petitioner
Fernando B. Arambulo for the crime of Qualified
Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act No. 9208,
as amended by Republic Act No. 10364. The case
originated from an Information filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging petitioner with
recruiting minors for the purpose of committing
robbery. The prosecution presented testimonies
from the minors, who stated that petitioner
recruited them and acted as the mastermind and
driver in a series of robberies. Petitioner, on the
other hand, claimed that the case was an act of
retaliation by one of the alleged victims.
ISSUE The main issue before the Court is whether
or not the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly
upheld petitioner's conviction for Qualified
Trafficking in Persons

The Court ruled that while petitioner cannot be

RULING convicted under the specific provision of the amended
law, his acts of recruiting minors for the purpose of
committing robberies fall under the original provision of
RA 9208. The Court affirmed petitioner's conviction for
Qualified Trafficking in Persons under the original
provision of the law. The Court also upheld the penalty
imposed by the CA, which is life imprisonment and a
fine. Additionally, the Court ordered petitioner to pay
moral and exemplary damages to the victims, with
legal interest.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs.
PRINCESS GINE C. SAN
MIGUEL, accused-appellant,
G.R. No. 247956, October 7,
2020.
 This case involves the appeal of Princess Gine C. San
FACTS Miguel (accused-appellant) against her conviction for
Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act No. 9208, as
amended by Republic Act No. 10364. The case
originated from an Information filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging accused-
appellant with trafficking minors and adults for the
purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation. The
prosecution presented evidence showing that
accused-appellant offered the services of the victims
to undercover agents, who subsequently conducted an
entrapment operation and arrested accused-
appellant. The RTC found accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to life
imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000. The Court of
Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision.
ISSUE The main issue raised in the case is whether there
was a valid entrapment operation conducted
against accused-appellant or if she was merely
instigated into committing the offense. Accused-
appellant argues that there was no valid
entrapment operation and that she was
instigated by the NBI agents. She also claims
that her defense of denial was not given
credence by the lower courts. On the other hand,
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argues
that all the elements of the offense are present
and that the NBI operation was a valid
entrapment.
RULING The court ruled that the appeal has no merit and
affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. The
court held that the NBI agents conducted a valid
entrapment operation and that accused-appellant
had the predisposition to commit the offense even
before she met the NBI agents. The court also found
that all the elements of the offense of Trafficking
in Persons were present. The court explained that
the elements of the offense include the act of
recruitment, transportation, or harboring of
persons; the means used, such as force, coercion,
or deception; and the purpose of exploitation,
which includes prostitution and sexual
exploitation.
THANK YOU